PIC, ABS and Other Regulatory
Issues in the context of Farm
Animal Genetic Resources
Economic Concepts
Animal Genetic Resource
Issues
Background to AnGR Issues
• Livestock provide 30% of total human
requirements for food and agriculture
• 70% of world’s poor depend on livestock
• 16% of breeds lost over last 100 years
• 32% of remainder at risk
• 70% of remainder located in developing
countries where extinction risk is highest
Some differences between AnGR
and PGR (I)
•
•
•
•
More mobile
Have a comparatively high cost per unit
Fecundity is low
the high impact of animal disease protocols on
international transport and access, and
• “Seed" needs to be deep frozen to survive (high
ex-situ conservation costs)
• the few remaining wild relatives of domestic
animal species
Some differences between AnGR
and PGR (II)
• the relatively small total number of animal genetic
resources and extremely small number of these which
have been exposed to date to modern development
technology
• the high impact of some biotechnologies on the dispersal
ability of animal resources
• the low level of knowledge of animal biology compared
with the wide range of environments over which
sustainable production is being sought
• the low level of genebanking of animal resources at risk.
• No large ex-situ collections of Southern germplasm
being accessed and patented by Northern companies
• Limited demand for adaptive traits in Northern livestock
production systems
Issues to Consider (Maputo, 2003)
• What have been the international flows of livestock
germplasm and what are such flows likely to be in the
future?
• What have been the benefits and costs of such movement
of germplasm and who stands to gain most from the future
movement of germplasm?
• Who undertakes research on livestock germplasm and who
stands to benefit from such research?
• What can be learnt from the PGR legal framework
experience and do differences between the economics of
AnGR and PGR conservation and sustainable use suggest
different solutions?
• What other policy factors, in addition to access and benefit
sharing, need to be considered in order to support the
conservation and sustainable use of AnGR?
Question 1:
• What can we learn from the PGR
experience?
Commentary 1
(Property Rights Assignment)
• Property right assignments that affects the
relationship between livestock-keeper
communities, livestock breeders and
biotechnology R&D must be considered
carefully (efficiency and equity
implications)
Outputs
Stage of Production
Rights Regime
Nature (land use decision)
consisting of:
 Lands and diversity of genetic resources
 Natural selection and evolutionary product
Selected traits
Open access
"Traditional Farmer"
consisting of:
 Observation
 Discriminatory selection and use
Landraces
Farmers' Rights
"Plant Breeder"
consisting of:
 Scientists
 Tools and technology
 Existng varieties
New plant
variety
Plant breeders
rights
Consumer
Figure 1: Vertical industry for plant breeding
Source: Swanson and Goschl (2000)
Commentary 1
(Property Rights Assignment)
Assignment at retail end of plant breeding industry
resulted in:
•Increased number of research and development (R&D)
programmes;
•Increased total number of plant breeders
•Increased aggregate amount of R&D expenditure
•Increased private R&D
•No increase in essential input activities for maintaining a
flow of genetic resources into the future (e.g. habitat and
biodiversity conservation).
Outputs
Stage of Production
Rights Regime
Nature (land use decision)
consisting of:
 Lands and diversity of genetic resources
 Natural selection and evolutionary product
Selected traits
Open access
"Traditional Farmer"
consisting of:
 Observation
 Discriminatory selection and use
Landraces
Farmers' Rights
"Plant Breeder"
consisting of:
 Scientists
 Tools and technology
 Existng varieties
New plant
variety
Plant breeders
rights
Consumer
Figure 1: Vertical industry for plant breeding
Source: Swanson and Goschl (2000)
Farmers’ Rights
• Recognition of the critical and innovative role that
farmers and rural communities play in the conservation
and further development of genetic resources and their
right to benefit from it.
• rights to land and secure tenure,
• the farmer's fundamental right to save seed and
exchange germplasm
• the right of farming communities to "say no" - to choose
not to make their germplasm and knowledge available.
• Farmers' Rights is also an integral part of the wider issue
of the "right to food".
Question 2
• What have been the net flows of livestock
germplasm so far and who has benefited?
Global flows of livestock
germplasm in past 150 years
Direction and Volume of flow
•North to North
very large, rapid expansion of intensive systems
•North to South
very large but sometimes (not always) detrimental
•South to South
(very?) large
• South to North
limited and benefits small?
Commentary 2
A detailed evaluation of the net costs
and benefits of global flows of livestock
germplasm, and prediction of potential
future benefits would be a valuable input
to international debates on how to address
legal and regulatory issues
Question 3
• Benefits – what are they and how can they
be shared?
Commentary 3
Non-monetary (as well as monetary)
– Information
– Technology transfer, hardware, software
and know-how
– Training
– Joint research and collaboration
– Institutional capacity building
– Local income generation and employment
– Benefits in-kind
Commentary 3
Current AnGR research already involves
considerable non-monetary benefit
sharing
•Need to protect/enhance existing forms
of benefit sharing
•Need improvement of public and
community use of biodiversity, including
existing benefit sharing at local level
Anyone for Loss Sharing?
The PSS gene: The world’s most
valuable livestock gene so far
• Test used in global pig populations to
remove undesirable mutation
• Total income to Innovations Foundation
approx $5m
• Net profit after deducting research cost
approx zero
• Global additional cost of research greater
than $2 million
• There was no commercial interest
Question/Commentry 4
(ITPGR Process)
PGR from developing countries were (and are) being
enhanced in developed countries and then sold back to the
developing world at substantial profit. Contrast to AnGR
case:
With improving technologies, is this scenario likely to repeat itself
for AnGR?
•Will the economics of AnGR always remain substantially
different from that of PGR?
•Given the current geneflows (not well understood), what are the
incentives for developing countries to involve themselves in the
development of an international legal and regulatory framework?
•Will a different regulatory process promote greater net benefits
than a free market in movement and exploitation of livestock
germplasm?
•Are there also important national regulatory issues to be
addressed as well?
Question 5
• What type of policy factors should be
considered?
Commentary 5
• Many policy-induced distortions
– Macroeconomic (e.g. exchange and
interest rates)
– Regulatory and pricing (e.g. taxation, price
controls, market and trade regulations)
– Investment policy (e.g. infrastructure
development)
– Institutional policy (e.g. property rights)
• Need for improved national regulatory
understanding
Food for Thought
• Licensing Know-how?`Know-how' license negotiated as
a measure to prevent a private company from gaining
rights over resources and/or knowledge which would
infringe upon own collective property rights. `Know-how'
license tied the rights to use the plants to the need for a
license to use the knowledge provided by the Aguaruna
peoples.
• Annual collection fee split into two agreements - a
minimum of $10,000 a year for four years as collection
fees, and $20,000 a year for a know-how license to be
paid throughout the R&D phase (10-15 years).
• In this way,element of control maintained over the product.
If agreement terminated at any point, rights to use the
plant or any derivatives goes with it.
Source: Bell, J. Biopiracy’s latest disguises. Seedling, June 1997. GRAIN
PIC Experiences
Project Context
• Title: Improving the Livelihoods of Poor
Livestock-keepers in Africa through Communitybased Management of Indigenous Farm Animal
Genetic Resources
• Funded by BMZ, Germany
• 3 year project (began 09/04) covering Ethiopia,
Benin and Kenya
Expected Outputs
• i) A framework for community-based management
(CBM) of AnGR developed and at least one program
established and functional in each project country;
• ii) Market opportunities for indigenous livestock
quantified and institutional constraints to
commercialisation and marketing identified;
• iii) Producer and consumer preferences for
alternative livestock genotypes (and associated
products) quantified, and cost-benefit analysis of
alternatives conducted;
• iv) Policy constraints to conservation and sustainable
use of indigenous livestock identified and policymakers sensitised to community needs;
• vi) National capacities for conservation and
sustainable use of indigenous AnGR strengthened.
Partners
• National Agricultural Research
Systems (NARS) in Benin, Ethiopia
and Kenya
• Georg-August University, Goettingen
• Hohenheim University
• GTZ (HQ and Country Offices)
• ILRI Staff across a number of
Themes
New/required research process:
ensure link between research
solution and outcome (e.g poverty
reduction, conservation, policy
adoption, etc.)
Basic
Strategic
Adaptive
Research
solution
Dissemination
Outcome
PIC Designated National
Authorities
• Ethiopia - Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation (IBC) involved in PIC/ABS work with PGR
but not AnGR. Pleased to see the interest of the project and notes
the need for linking with other appropriate stakeholders and
undertaking wider consultations.
• Kenya - Not clear which is the competent National Authority. The
National Environment Authority assesses only environmental
impacts, and genetic resource issues have not yet been
incorporated into its mandate.
• Benin - Ministry of Environment is the focal point for CBD issues
and has developed a policy and action plan on biodiversity
conservation. But the policy development for AnGR is still in
process. The policy will cover three components, including:
– the marketing of animals and semen
– rules governing the movement of livestock, and
– breeding strategies and programmes
Obtaining PIC at the community
level (Experiences)
• Participatory processes employed to fully inform the
communities about the purpose of the project
• Respective roles of the project and of the livestock
keepers were discussed. The kinds of interventions that
would be undertaken (characterization, monitoring of
health interventions) were clearly elaborated.
• Emphasis was on building confidence within the
community and on achieving an (oral) agreement on
working with each other.
• PIC issues in the narrow sense of the term
(relating to ABS) were not discussed because:
– Felt that this was premature.
– No rules for PIC have been established.
– Livestock keepers have different priorities.
Obtaining PIC at the community
level (Challenges)
• Livestock keepers have different priorities. They are poor
and more interested in direct benefits, rather than in
fairly abstract concepts. Therefore they are not really
interested in the issue or fail to fathom the implications.
Considerable capacity-building and training is necessary
before livestock keepers are mature enough to grant
qualified “PIC”.
• Obtaining PIC for AnGR is a new approach, so there are
no existing experiences which could be consulted.
(Therefore it is extremely important that our experiences
are documented.)
• PIC can only be implemented as a process that evolves
gradually, also depending on the points raised by the
communities. We need to keep up the dialogue and try
to educate the communities – maybe this will changes
their perceptions about their rights.
Some PGR ABS experiences in
Ethiopia
• Ethiopia has negotiated two ABS agreements
– gluten-free Teff strains with a Dutch company
– Oil plant with a British company
• Contracts:
– cover a period of ten years
– represent exclusive marketing agreements between
the government and the companies
• Question as to the link with communities (how
do the communities benefit?), not least as it is
not clear as to who the “communities” are.
PIC Project Findings to Date (I)
• Countries have not yet developed the institutional
frameworks that would be necessary for implementing
PIC. Even the “competent national authority” has not
really been selected.
• Obtaining PIC at the community-level is an on-going
evolving process, rather than a one-time event resulting
in a signed contract.
• At the community level, obtaining PIC is, in the case of
this project, not that different from undertaking a
participatory project approach. In all three countries, the
communities have been fully informed about the
intention of the project to increase economic returns from
livestock keeping.
• However, the situation would change substantially, if the
project came to collect blood samples. In this event, it
would be very problematic to explain the eventual
repercussions or consequences. In effect, in the event of
blood sampling, consent would neither be “prior” nor fully
PIC Project Findings to Date (II)
• Obtaining meaningful PIC therefore requires
considerable capacity-building of the community
so that it can even fully grasp all implications.
• In the case of “benefits” materializing, livestock
keepers would need to be organized into strong
associations, in order to take advantage of
these. As the Ethiopian experience with plant
genetic resource benefit-sharing shows, these
agreements have resulted in financial benefits
accruing with the government, but there are very
limited mechanisms for passing these on to
communities.
Contact Details & More Information
Adam G. Drucker, ILRI-Ethiopia
a.drucker@cgiar.org
http://www.ilri.org
(Follow links: Research/Biotechnology/Economics
of AnGR Publications)